Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihon no Uta Hyakusen


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nihon no Uta Hyakusen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Just a duplication of a list from http://www.bunka.go.jp/uta100sen/ but no explanation of methodology (other than a poll without a mention of whom) or why this is any more important than any other similar list. No coverage in third-party sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a list 101 classic songs that all Japanese people know, mostly nursery songs. It's definitely notable, because these songs were chosen by the government as the best examples of Japanese cultural heritage for mothers to teach their children. A corresponding article would be, e.g. List of nursery rhymes, but that list is not really maintainable, whereas this one is because the songs were specifically selected by the government as valuable. This article will prove helpful to anyone with an interest in this subject and can be a useful starting point for further research, which is the reason most people use Wikipedia anyway. BTW, this is a little off-topic, but I spent several hours translating this article from its corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia and I don't like that this Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars fella has tried to delete it three times now through various means rather than simply asking me for help improving it. Shii (tock) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has existed since 2007 on Japanese Wikipedia and is considered noteworthy there. The topic meets Wikipedia's notability guideline: it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including two Japanese newspapers. The topic is relatively obscure to an English-speaking audience, but does not fall under any of the suggested reasons for deletion. As per alternatives to deletion, if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.--Jonathan Drain (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep per Jonathan Drain. I suggest to provide translations for the reference titles in addition to the Japanese original (『荒城の月』から『涙そうそう』、日本の歌に１０１曲, 歌い継いでいきたい童謡・唱歌ランキング, 親子で歌いつごう 日本の歌百選") in order to help non-Japanese readers access the relevance of the sources. bamse (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I thought this was a keep before, and I think the citations show it beyond any reasonable doubt now. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SNOW keep. The set of songs is also represented in Japanese song books such as this one.  In addition to coverage by national newspapers, the list is clearly notable.  No need to keep this AfD running the full seven days. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per reasons provided by Shii and Jonathan Drain. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article covers a clearly notable topic given the news coverage and the book coverage mentioned. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jonathan Drain -- Hirohisat (Talk) 00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.